ORDER : 1. As, these petitions arise out of the same crime number, they are clubbed together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard Sri. Pratheep. K.C. learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 394/2017, Sri. Rahul Rai. K. learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 702/2017 and Sri. B. Vishweshwaraiah, learned HCGP for the respondent State in both the cases; and perused the records. 3. Petitioner in Crl. P. No. 394/2017 is accused no. 5, petitioner in Crl. P. No. 702/2017 is accused no. 4 in Crime No. 208/2016 registered by Hassan City police station for offences punishable under Section 394 of IPC. 4. The case of the prosecution is that on 06.08.2016, at about 4.30 a.m., when the complainant, after getting down from train was walking towards his house, 4 to 5 persons assaulted him with an iron rod and a club and robbed him cash of Rs.15,000/- a mobile phone, wallet and other valuable things. The complainant lodged complaint against unknown persons. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions argued that on 17.12.2016, nearly after four and half months after the incident, the police arrested these accused. But, no recovery has been made from them attributable, except a club and an iron rod. They further submitted that accused no. 4 is a car driver and accused no. 5 is a motor mechanic and they are law abiding citizens. The police have implicated them due to inimical reasons. With these submissions, they prayed for allowing these petitions. 6. Per contra, Sri. B. Vishweshwaraiah, learned HCGP, opposing the bail petitions submitted that since these petitioners have committed serious offences, if they are released on bail, they may involve themselves in the commission of similar offences. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the petitions. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned HCGP for the State and perused the records. 8. Admittedly, complaint has been lodged against unknown persons. Though the petitioners have been arrested on 17.12.2016, as on the date, the prosecution has not placed any material such as recovery of any belongings of the complainant, which the assailants had robbed, nor placed any credible material before this Court which may disentitle the petitioners from being released on bail. 9. Admittedly, complaint has been lodged against unknown persons. Though the petitioners have been arrested on 17.12.2016, as on the date, the prosecution has not placed any material such as recovery of any belongings of the complainant, which the assailants had robbed, nor placed any credible material before this Court which may disentitle the petitioners from being released on bail. 9. In the circumstances, in my view, these petitions merit consideration and deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, it is directed that: (i) Petitioners shall be released on bail upon their executing a self bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court; (ii) Petitioners shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during the further course of investigation and appear before him as and when called upon; (iii) Petitioners shall mark their attendance before the jurisdictional Police on every 1st and 3rd Sunday between 10 a.m. & 1 p.m. till the charge-sheet is filed; (iv) Petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to prosecution witness or any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or investigating officer; (v) Petitioners shall not involve themselves in any criminal activities; (vi) If the petitioners violate any one of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail. Petition allowed.